14:50:32 RRSAgent has joined #prov
14:50:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/17-prov-irc
14:50:34 RRSAgent, make logs world
14:50:34 Zakim has joined #prov
14:50:36 Zakim, this will be
14:50:36 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:50:37 Meeting: Provenance Working Group Teleconference
14:50:37 Date: 17 May 2012
14:50:37 Zakim, this will be PROV
14:50:37 ok, Luc; I see SW_(PROV)11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:46 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.17
14:51:36 Chair: Moreau
14:51:44 rrsagent, make logs public
14:51:49 zakim, who is here?
14:51:49 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has not yet started, Luc
14:51:50 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
14:52:03 Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies
14:52:17 Regrets: Paul Groth, Tom DeNies, Paolo Missier
14:57:34 Paolo_ has joined #prov
14:57:54 smiles has joined #prov
14:58:01 SW_(PROV)11:00AM has now started
14:58:08 +??P16
14:59:01 tlebo has joined #prov
14:59:10 + +1.315.330.aaaa
14:59:13 -??P16
14:59:19 zakim, I am aaaa
14:59:19 +tlebo; got it
14:59:54 +Luc
15:00:13 Curt has joined #prov
15:00:20 +??P21
15:00:21 Scribe: simon miles
15:00:30 zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:30 On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21
15:01:04 topic: admin
15:01:31 +Curt_Tilmes
15:01:46 +[OpenLink]
15:01:56 GK1 has joined #prov
15:01:58 Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me
15:01:59 Zakim, mute me
15:02:00 +MacTed; got it
15:02:06 MacTed should now be muted
15:02:51 proposed: to accept minute of last week's teleconference
15:03:06 jcheney has joined #prov
15:03:19 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/meeting/2012-05-10
15:03:20 +1
15:03:21 0 (not present)
15:03:23 +1
15:03:26 +1
15:03:38 + +44.131.467.aabb
15:03:54 resolved: minutes of last week's teleconference
15:03:54 Zakim, who's here?
15:03:54 On the phone I see tlebo, Luc, ??P21, Curt_Tilmes, MacTed (muted), +44.131.467.aabb
15:03:57 On IRC I see jcheney, GK1, Curt, tlebo, smiles, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, trackbot, sandro
15:04:09 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/actions/open
15:04:10 Luc: Action review
15:04:20 oops, sorry, still getting audio together
15:04:30 GK has joined #prov
15:04:40 Luc: Action on Sandro regarding emailing emailing announcements to W3C mail list
15:04:49 jun has joined #prov
15:04:54 I just sent my review
15:05:02 Luc: Actions on Tim, Graham to review constraints doc - talk about later
15:05:05 Paolo has joined #prov
15:05:14 Topic: PAQ release
15:05:41 Graham?
15:05:41 +??P49
15:05:44 graham?
15:05:59 zakim, ??P49 is me
15:06:01 +GK; got it
15:06:01 Zakim, unmute me
15:06:03 MacTed should no longer be muted
15:06:08 Zakim, mute me
15:06:11 MacTed should now be muted
15:06:17 khalidbelhajjame has joined #prov
15:06:29 +??P50
15:06:31 +??P44
15:06:38 zakim, ?P44 is me
15:06:40 sorry, jun, I do not recognize a party named '?P44'
15:06:42 Christine has joined #prov
15:06:49 zakim, ??P44 is me
15:06:51 GK: PAQ has not been edited in past week, so not ready for release yet
15:07:05 +jun; got it
15:07:09 GK: Publication release not yet requested to his knowledge
15:07:17 Luc: Please agree release date soon
15:07:22 topic: other documents
15:07:37 +??P51
15:07:37 dgarijo has joined #prov
15:07:43 +??P6
15:07:48 zakim, ??P51 is me
15:07:49 +Sandro
15:08:02 Luc: For PROV-DM, have made a number of changes, closed many issues
15:08:26 -??P6
15:08:32 ... some issues still outstanding, listed in the agenda so people who raised them can talk to them: Khalid, Yolanda, Graham, Tim
15:08:36 +khalidbelhajjame; got it
15:08:39 Issue 88 can be closed as far as I'm concerned
15:08:44 +??P3
15:08:57 Zakim, ??P3 is me
15:08:57 +dgarijo; got it
15:08:57 ... For PROV-N, implemented optional identifier changes, made grammar linkable for navigation, simplified presentation
15:09:04 ... soon ready for review
15:09:18 Just closed issue 88
15:09:21 ... For PROV-CONSTRAINTS, no progress, waiting for feedback?
15:09:25 jcheney: confirms
15:09:35 @graham, thanks
15:09:57 tlebo: PROV-O, been closing issues, two requests for review before closing
15:10:25 ... added cross-references for terms within HTML document
15:10:34 ... latest draft linked on agenda
15:10:42 ... feedback on the cross-references welcome
15:10:48 q?
15:10:50 ... on track for release June 1
15:11:13 q?
15:11:22 satya has joined #prov
15:11:25 smiles: PROV-Primer, not much to report from last week
15:11:28 topic: collections organization
15:11:29 +Satya_Sahoo
15:11:31 Luc: any comments on progress?
15:11:55 Topic: restructuring documents for collections
15:12:21 Luc: Several reviewers felt section of PROV-O on collections was long, and made appear more important than they are
15:12:39 ... Paul suggested separating the collections out of the PROV-O document
15:12:54 ... Separately, Graham suggested restructuring DM
15:13:10 ... Last week, requested concrete proposals for restructuring
15:13:21 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring
15:14:13 GK: Proposal is in some ways quite radical, and is focused around separating central provenance patterns from those for specific processes
15:14:57 ... The rationale is to achieve (1) separate core provenance patterns from specific applications, for comprehensibility of core idea
15:15:51 -??P50
15:15:54 ... (2) Maximising interoperability with other systems doing provenance-like things
15:17:03 ... other models including provenance seem to include core matching the core DM patterns
15:17:42 apropos of GK's "core" patterns... this came to my eyes today -- http://linkedevents.org/ontology/
15:17:43 ... (3) Minimising ontological commitment of users of model, so core embodies little semantics but captures essentials of traceability
15:18:15 ... Core: entity, activity, agent
15:18:45 Luc: Your proposal is to break DM document in two?
15:18:48 GK: Yes
15:18:51 q?
15:19:08 paolo?
15:19:15 just on irc? paolo?
15:20:02 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Collections
15:20:13 tlebo: Other proposal (linked above) from Paolo
15:20:57 ... collections and dictionaries taken out of PROV-O, classes and properties, and put into separate PROV-O-C document
15:21:03 ... aim to simplify PROV-O
15:21:06 sorry guys text only,
15:21:10 and very unstable
15:21:37 ... PROV-O team discussed on Monday, preferred to focus on the content of PROV-O rather than deconstructing
15:21:40 thanks smiles for minuting
15:21:44 I can fit http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-collections-terms into 1.25 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-qualified-terms takes up 4 screens. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#description-starting-point-terms takes up 1.5 screens
15:21:48 @paolo, it's ok, tim filling in
15:22:31 ... Have responded to reviews by simplifying content on collections
15:22:35 yes I know Tim questions the motivation for this ripping exercise
15:22:57 ... PROV-O team prefers to keep collections in PROV-O document
15:23:16 we seemed to agree that it's for the prov-o team to pursue this if they want
15:23:30 Luc: After last telecon, Paul and Luc considered logistics of taking collections out of existing documents to make new document
15:24:08 ... short of editors and bandwidth, and goes beyond scope of original charter to give application specific extensions
15:24:36 ... that is why Paolo suggested just extracting from PROV-O
15:25:17 ... Tim, are you proposing not separating, as length concerns are already being addressed?
15:25:20 tlebo: Yes
15:25:28 (and that was the agreement of the prov-o team)
15:25:41 q?
15:25:56 Luc: We have proposals to not do anything on restructuring or Graham's proposal
15:26:04 q+
15:26:55 tlebo: From explaining to other people, people latch onto those core concepts
15:27:06 ... (as in section 1 of Graham's document)
15:28:24 tlebo: What about components (organisational structure of current draft)?
15:28:36 http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#data-model-components
15:28:46 GK: Tried to stick with existing material, suggest grouped in different way
15:28:51 ack tlebo
15:28:52 q-
15:29:30 Luc: Structure proposed is more or less what we had two iterations ago, but sections in one document
15:29:40 ... but had reviews critical of this separation
15:29:57 ... so decided to reorganise to remove distinction of core and extension
15:30:23 Paolo has joined #prov
15:30:32 ... seems to be going back, and when we get to justifying what is core, what is extension, we will have difficulties
15:31:01 ... Second, have had feedback from people outside WG who found component structure useful
15:31:18 ... so reluctant to abandon it if we split document
15:31:44 ... Third, if restructure PROV-DM, then have to do the same in other documents
15:32:11 ... lead to a multiplication of documents, as scary as large number of concepts in current model
15:32:17 what is background of these outside readers? philosophers, scientists, programmers, other? experience and grounding matters to whether the current structure is easy to understand...
15:33:00 ... There are sub-types, e.g. wasRevisionOf subtype of wasDerivedFrom, and could make more explicit in structure of DM
15:33:47 ... For example, derivations in section 6.3.1, could then have subsections for subtypes
15:34:01 ... (4.3.1 not 6.3.1)
15:34:53 ... or explicit marker for terms that are core, e.g. communication is not primitive as can be described in terms of generation and usage
15:35:40 q?
15:35:43 q+
15:36:36 satya: As MacTed wrote above, who are the readers of the documents? which reviewers?
15:36:44 q+
15:36:48 q-
15:37:00 Zakim, unmute me
15:37:00 MacTed should no longer be muted
15:37:01 Luc: In this case, researchers he works with who've implemented data model, felt component structure helped
15:37:44 MacTed: That kind of feedback is not very useful, need more kinds of audience
15:37:59 ... in favour of GK's restructuring
15:38:24 ... for PROV-O, does not seem to have discerned what is a sub-class of what, what are the overarching elements
15:38:51 ... there really are core concepts, and refinement of those
15:39:26 perhaps if we organized http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvDM_Proposal_for_restructuring#Provenance_core_concepts by components?
15:39:26 q?
15:39:30 ack mact
15:39:56 ... root primitives need to be clearly presented
15:40:25 Luc: Agree that root primitives need to be clearly presented
15:40:28 q?
15:40:37 q+ to say I'll respond oif there arter no other comments
15:41:43 GK: Responding to Luc's point, looking at document two iterations ago, while separation of core from other concepts, too much other clutter so organisation wasn't serving purpose
15:42:31 ... Added rationale to his proposal of separation of core pattern, with principles clear
15:43:19 q+ to ask what if graham incorporated components into his outline?
15:43:23 ... With regard to restructuring other documents, don't see need to do so, just restructure DM, leave others as they are
15:43:34 ... PROV-O already does the job of pulling out core patterns
15:43:45 q+ to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
15:44:32 ... Regarding changing presentation, mixing text on subtypes with supertypes would be exact opposite
15:44:39 ... of what is intended
15:44:40 @jcheny, I'll yield :-)
15:45:14 ... To have to dig around in document for core ideas means much less likely specification would be deployed
15:45:22 q?
15:45:22 q-
15:45:30 q-
15:45:46 ack jcheney
15:45:46 jcheney, you wanted to say I need to leave at 5 so can we discuss the prov-constraints review briefly before spending the rest of the meeting debating restructuring
15:45:56 topic: constraints document
15:46:08 go ahead, graham.
15:46:28 high-level impression is fine
15:46:41 GK: Looked through constraints document, feels a lot tighter and has right approach
15:46:54 ... definitions and inferences presented crisply
15:47:10 ... may be able to make more comments later, but looking good
15:47:35 tlebo: Biggest concern on last iteration was about getting into content
15:47:48 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Dm-constraints_review_2012_May_17_by_Lebo
15:47:50 ... this version is much better organised, natural to know where to go
15:48:20 ... minor detailed comments sent (above)
15:49:17 jcheney: Thanks, was really looking for high level impression, thanks for going through in more detail
15:49:27 ... good to know happy with direction
15:49:59 I think the style of revised -CONSTRAINTS will nicely complement a less formal description of -DM
15:50:06 @jcheney, sorry, I missed your questions in the email :-)
15:50:16 ... after last week had more specific questions, implicitly answered in Tim's comments, but please look at questions in email
15:51:16 @jcheney, I'll respond to the email questions after this meeting.
15:51:27 ... will go through issues raised to see what can be closed
15:51:30 q?
15:52:05 Topic: Responsibility
15:52:18 http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Renaming_the_concept_Responsibility
15:53:01 tlebo: In definitions of assocation and attribution are responsibility, so name Responsibility is confusing and misnamed
15:53:34 I may have suggested "delegation" at some point
15:54:03 ... Wiki page comments above to prompt discussion by email
15:54:16 is there an issue raised for responsibility?
15:54:37 topic: bundles
15:54:46 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/wd6-bundle.html
15:55:03 Luc: Circulated text addressing issues raised